Lawsuit Says GPL is a Price-Fixing Scheme

Soko writes "Yes, it's real. The crack team of Daniel Wallace and Maureen O'Gara have ganged up once again to protect their version of "The American Dream," he by filing a lawsuit in Indiana court saying the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme designed to drive software vendors out of business, she by parroting the proprietary vendors' "The GPL kills business" mantra (as well as a few well placed insults at the free software community). I found the story on Groklaw - no links to Ms. O'Gara or Mr. Wallace from me. I'm still kind of dumbfounded at the audacity of Mr. Wallace, but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing." This Google search reveals some of Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL.

Comments

Springer show.

[FyRE666]

I'm surprised that Slashdot actually posted this drivel on the front page (well actually the real surprise was the lack of spelling errors!) As has been the case for several months now, O'Gara's articles have become deliberately more provocative and frankly ridiculous as she attempts to push up the banner hits on the LBW/LBN website. I don't think she even bothers to cite anything resembling a fact anymore, but simply blurts out the most ridiculous thoughts that she finds stomping around the inside of her head.

For anyone who isn't aware, one of the other regular "writers" for LBW/LBN was recently outed, caught trolling on the SCOX message board to pull in more hits with his crackpot theories. It's looking like a company policy.

There's no doubt that MOG is simply using this Wallace fellow to help finance the ailing website. Personally I'm not going to visit it, and I'd suggest anyone else with any sense also not bother. The slashdot effect is exactly the thing they wish for over there... unless everyone visits with Lynx, or images turned off, of course ;-)

LBW/LBN is fast becoming the "Jerry Springer show" of the tech news sites...

Paraphrasing ESR

[Eberlin]

The software industry is a service industry operating under the guise of a manufacturing industry.

Of course there are some exceptions -- the gaming industry, for example (though MMORPGs have the "subscription service" thing down). Unfortunately I can't name any others at the time but I'm sure there's more. :)

The GPL isn't a price-fixing scheme...it basically exposed the current artifically inflated price-fixing scheme that is proprietary software.

Adapt and evolve, baby. Or cry about it all the way to extinction.

Wait a minute...Wal-Mart.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Really now, how does the GPL fix prices when it allows anyone to charge any amount of money for GPL software?"

And as people are quick to point out about digital goods. They have no value... oh wait, wrong discussion. No "asking for, and getting" are two different things. Plus much like Wal-mart it puts pressure on software practitioners to the lowest price possible.* It most certainly doesn't put pressure on anyone to raise them.

*Throw in globalization and really let the fun begin. Software's free, and the person writting it is damn close to it.

Re:If I'm not terribly mistaken

[hendersj]

Having sat on a jury, I can tell you that that's the intent, but in fact juries have to interpret law in order to decide whether the facts support a guilty or a not guilty verdict.

In my case, the plantiff was a person who was busted for posession of methamphetamine and drug paraphanelia.

Both sides present to the jury what they think will give the best chance for conviction (ie, the prosecution does this) or acquittal (the defense's job). In preparing the papers for the jury, both sides are allowed to submit papers that describe the offense.

Now this guy was guilty as all hell of what he was accused of. After the case was over, the defense attorney came in and asked the jury what she could have done differently, and those of us talking to her agreed that putting him on the stand would've helped - but she said "Oh, I couldn't have done that, because he was in fact guilty."

She then explained that what would've happened had she had the defendant testify was that the prosecution would've asked him about the warrant he was served with, and he would've had to testify as to his drug production history, which would guarantee a conviction.

Also, in amongst the papers we were given was a definition of the statute we were to rule on where it stated that posession of drug paraphanelia required an intent to use - which wasn't proven in the case. I actually stopped to talk to the judge about this after the case was over, and he said "Yeah, defense attorneys use that citation of case precident to try to get their defendants an acquittal - it never works, but they have to try it." The way it was presented was in its case form - and to a non-lawyer, that can be presented to it looks like a statute.

All jokes aside about not being able to avoid jury duty - it is a very interesting process, and if you live in the US, you should try it at least once.